Conclusion: Building on the Strengths of Interdisciplinarity

Belland, Brian R.; Fee, Samuel B.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3540-2_16

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But they also need to consider social equity issues related to the right to work in an appropriate job. Many such problems can involve multiple areas within STEM, as interdisciplinary work can lead to more robust problem solutions (Belland & Fee, 2012;Porter & Rafols, 2009) and is becoming more common in STEM research (Murray, Atkinson, Gilbert, & Kruchten, 2014;Porter & Rafols, 2009).…”

Section: Engaging With Authentic Stem Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intended Learning Outcomes and Assessment of Computer-Based Scaffolding

Belland

2016

Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter, I describe the intended learning outcomes of scaffolding-content knowledge and higher-order thinking abilities-and link these to the goals advanced by the Next Generation Science Standards and related documents from recent curricular revisions in STEM education. Furthermore, I address different ways in which scaffolding's effect can be measured (assessment level), and explore whether there are differences in the magnitude of scaffolding's effect according to assessment level. Meta-analysis results show that there is no difference in effect size magnitude on the basis of intended learning outcome (i.e., content knowledge or higher-order thinking abilities). Scaffolding's effect was greater when measured at the principles level than when measured at the concept level. But scaffolding's effect was statistically greater than 0 and substantial for all three assessment levels (i.e., concept, principles, and application). These results are then discussed.

show abstract